Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president, Giuliani tells Fox News
President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, told Fox News on Wednesday that special counsel Robert Mueller has told the president's legal team he will follow Justice Department guidance and not seek an indictment against Trump.
Giuliani, himself a former federal prosecutor and mayor of New York City, also told Fox News that Mueller's investigators have not responded to five information requests from the president's team. That has forced Trump's legal team to push off making a decision about whether the president will sit for an interview with the special counsel -- a decision they had hoped to reach by Thursday.
The precedent that federal prosecutors cannot indict a sitting president is laid out in a 1999 Justice Department memo. Giuliani told Fox News that Mueller has no choice but to follow its guidance.
"This case is essentially over," Giuliani said. "They're just in denial."
Giuliani joined Trump's legal team last month and has repeatedly warned that an in-person interview of the president by the special counsel's team would constitute a "perjury trap." Complicating matters, Trump himself has refused to rule out agreeing to an interview with Mueller.
In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity earlier this month, Giuliani said that the Mueller team had ruled out allowing the Trump team to submit written answers to the special counsel's questions.
The attorney whom Giuliani replaced on Trump's team, John Dowd, has said that Mueller has floated the idea of issuing a grand jury subpoena for Trump to answer questions. If that were to occur, the president could still fight it in court or refuse to answer questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right to protection from self-incrimination.
Thursday marks one year after Mueller's appointment to oversee the FBI investigation into alleged collusion between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign. So far, investigators have charged 19 people — including four Trump campaign advisers — and three Russian companies.
Both Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his deputy campaign chairman, Rick Gates, have pleaded guilty and are now cooperating with the probe. Several other former White House and campaign staffers, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon, as well as Inauguration Day committee chairman Tom Barrack, have been interviewed.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/16/mueller-told-trumps-legal-team-will-not-indict-president-giuliani-tells-fox-news.html
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
80 visitors
Yup, The 1999 Clinton DOJ memo has served as guidance
Today was a very bad day for Donald Trump.
Bad day for the Deep State.
Every time I do a search for the Deep State, to read about it I am always taken to far right wing rags... So my guess is that it's all BS.
The Deep State are the Koch's, Adelson, Faux non-News and the christian taliban. And of course their Russian allies.
Yep, one of the links took me to infowhores.
No JR....it means that Mueller can't do anything to Trump, who will ignore him from now on. He can't indict Trump, and only Congress can impeach him, which they won't
Stated more correctly, Mueller cannot do anything DIRECTLY to trump. I mean, he can subpoena him, and if trump refuses, he will be held in contempt of court, it would go to the SCOTUS, who would uphold the contempt charge and donny would be charged with a felony. If trump goes in, and lies, he will be charged with a felony. If he pleads the 5th, he will be called out as guilty since he himself has said that only guilty people plead the 5th, which would see is already shitty approval ratings drop through the floor.
...
If Mueller subpoenas donny? He is pretty well fucked, (I mean, more so than he already is). Ignore Mueller? Nope. Can't indict trump? Questionable. Impeach trump? If they find proof of obstruction of justice? Absolutely. I mean, that's what Clinton was impeached for.
Stop talking guilty of in no cence ,
asz it just doesn't add up
to enuff 4 sum 2 change there mined too stripped,
by pin
strippers, popping balloons, N
two oh so many other waze wrong to ever just I fy, even f high fi infidelity wasn't enuff to plagued and actually almost bring down a disc graced head scratching mental unstable midget
tosser of bad idea salads
agenda driven , financially motivated & so devoted to the coarse the GOP is so fine with,
it should embarrass ALL AMERICANS !
How the FUCKK can people buy this BULLSHIT
.
ignorance ruling was not meant as a complimentary moniker,
just our unfortunate reality,
Wake up people, WHAT DOES IT TAKE
LOL, Why is that?
OK, so, let's look at this from what Trump has said in the past.
If you tell the truth, then you don't get caught in a "perjury trap".
"Only the Mob pleads the Fifth". -Donald Trump
So, what is Trump hiding? If he is afraid of committing perjury then he is afraid of lying to Mueller, which means he has something to hide. If he has to plead the Fifth then he might say something that would incriminate him in a crime.
Tell that to Mike Flynn
"Only the Mob pleads the Fifth". -Donald Trump
"the mob" or "the Deep state"....I haven't seen Trump do it
So, what is Trump hiding? If he is afraid of committing perjury then he is afraid of lying to Mueller, which means he has something to hide. If he has to plead the Fifth then he might say something that would incriminate him in a crime.
So, what is Mueller & his resistance team up to? Could it be they want to entrap the President with a process crime?
Flynn lied to the FBI, that is called perjury, if he wanted to avoid that all he had to do was tell the truth or, plead the Fifth.
The only "Deep State" that I see is sitting in the White House hiding from a legal investigation into Russian meddling in our elections. The reason that Trumps lawyers don't want Trump talking to Mueller is because, they know that Trump is guilty as homemade sin.
You do understand that Mueller and, Rosenstein are both Republicans don't you?
What was the lie, specifically?
The only "Deep State" that I see is sitting in the White House hiding from a legal investigation into Russian meddling in our elections. The reason that Trumps lawyers don't want Trump talking to Mueller is because, they know that Trump is guilty as homemade sin.
Please show us where?
You do understand that Mueller and, Rosenstein are both Republicans don't you?
Just like John McCain
All you have to do to see this is watch the news every day and, read the papers.
So....this is hearsay. I get the impression that Rudy is saying what he wants to be true, not what actually happened. Remember, this is the same guy that said Trump knew about the payment to daniels, then said he didn't know about it.... I mean, in the affair that trump said never happened in the first place.
Rudy....it's sad...I used to like the guy, now he is just a pathetic mouthpiece for a lying POS president.
You probably really don't know the truth because the only news source you watch, MSDNC, is talking about Stormy right now as I type this.
Watch it? I have never even heard of it.
None of this matters....no crime, no indictment, no impeachment, game over.
It took three years to get Nixon, it took six for Iran/Contra. As the saying goes, "It ain't over until the fat lady sings", and, she isn't even warming up yet.
You mean............
YET.... The investigation is not over and just because donny is running down the street with his hair on fire screaming, "NO COLLUSION!!!!!", doesn't mean that there wasn't any. Donny lied about the size of his effing inauguration crowd size, you don't think he would lie about collusion? And on that... Anyone that says something like, "no collusion" as much as donny does....5 10 times a day, is most likely guilty of it. It's called over compensating and it SCREAMS out. "I am GUILTY as HELL!!!".
Watergate involved a crime! A crime launched the investigation!
And if Mueller asks about crowd size and he embellishes his own crowd size, he get's charged with perjury? Yup, that's Just what the left is fantasizing about. Remember, the 1999 DOJ precedent
So does this,
Trump received gifts from foreign powers during the inauguration, a total of 107 million was received for that inauguration and, barely 1/4 of it was used for the inauguration, so, what happened to the rest of it? 250K came from a Russian close to Putin, several other donations came from Qatar, Saudi Arabia and, Turkey. Now, Trump is receiving gifts from China and, he has started promoting a company ZTE, which according to the intelligence community, is able to spy on people in the U.S. using their devices, (cell phones) that they make.
Lol, You really reach for everything! The Emollient Clause sits in the ash heap of never used archaic laws along with the Logan Act. Only the Obama operative Sally Yates uses them and only on political opponents
So, in spite of everything you have said in the past, you aren't a Constitutionalist, if you were you would know that the EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE, is an important part of the Constitution and, prevents people like Trump from remaining in office for long. The reason and, the only reason, it hasn't been used up till now is that every other person who has held the office of president has taken it seriously and, knew that it was in the Constitution, Trump never reads anything, (his own admission), so, I doubt he's ever read the Constitution.
You'll use anything to get Trump out of office. So let me set you straight on using the Emoluents Clause on the President.
From a well known Law Professor:
DERSHOWITZ: "Collusion is not a crime unless it’s committing a criminal act. But the treason thing upsets me. When we wrote our constitution the British were using treason broadly against their kings. So the writers of the Constitution put a very narrow definition of treason. It is waging war against the United States. It’s inconceivable that anybody with knowledge of the Constitution or American history would argue a private citizen by securing information from for a campaign created treason. We ought to stop talking about it. We are miseducating American people. We are mix educating young people. Young people could to me and say is it really treason? Young people are looking at the Constitution these days. A kid asked me about the emollients clause. She thought it was a facial cream. So we are going to learn a lesson. But it’s so dangerous to democracy to throw around these criminal law terms and accuse people willy-nilly it was just as bad in my view when they did it to Hillary Clinton when they yelled lock her up and tried to expand the espionage clause."
Actually, its long overdue. After a year long investigation (longer if you include the FBI investigation), which was launched without a crime, under very suspicious circumstances, it is time to start calling it what it is.
Impeachment and removal is the remedy, if he committed crimes. He can be charged criminally after his removal from office, or like Clinton, Trump could reach an agreement to avoid prosecution when his term ends.
If mueller tries to do more, he will trigger an unprecedented constitutional crises. Hopefully, he’s not that crazy. It appears from what his office told guiliani that he is aware we have a constitution.
The crisis would be if trump fired Mueller. Not the other way around. The only reason rudy is saying that trump cannot be indicted is because that is the DOJ's guideline. It could be challenged in court. So, "no indictments for sitting presidents" is a GUIDELINE, not a law.
Like you said though, he can be impeached. Mueller will finish the investigation, submit his report and congress and the DOJ will go from there. Mueller isn't judge and jury...he is just the investigator...he presents the facts, it's up to others to decide on action.
The only people saying that are progressives. Trump would never do that. Mueller has nothing - why would you fire him. This is all on Mueller now.
So, "no indictments for sitting presidents" is a GUIDELINE, not a law.
“The Justice Department has twice ruled in a memo for the second or third time, stating clearly that the president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, and tried while serving in office. The only mechanism the Constitution provides is that he could be impeached, and once impeached and removed from office, he can then be charged with a criminal trial. But a sitting president cannot — according to the Justice Department, be tried.”
This came out today. It involves Trumps financial disclosure to the OGE.
Since he didn't report the payment last year the OGE has sent a letter to the DOJ to investigate if a crime was committed.
Fair enough, but it's not collusion or obstruction. Is that where we are? The American people see what is happening. You would pay for something like that, so go ahead Bobby try it.
How do you figure this? Because Trump said so? Think again, Mueller hasn't come out and, said that collusion or, obstruction are off the table. The OGE is separate from the Mueller probe, what they put forth is a whole new deal in the investigation, separate from what Mueller is investigating as far as Russia is concerned and, separate from what Stormy Daniels lawyer is doing, it amounts to another straw on the back of the camel.
Now, let's talk about the title of the article for a minute here, it says, "Mueller told Trump's legal team he will not indict the president", this is not the truth, it is assumed that the president can't be indicted because of a DOJ rule but, the rule actually says that a special counsel cannot indict a sitting president without the permission of the acting head of the DOJ, in this case that "acting head of the DOJ" is Rosenstein so, Mueller would have to bring a request to indict to Rosenstein and, Rosenstein would make the decision to indict.
You are forgetting he can be indicted after he's out of office. Via federal courts and state courts. He's not getting out of this without paying for his misdeeds. If not today, soon enough. But we'll be hearing all about his malfeasance regardless.
You can do as you please when he's out of office. I'll take him for 8 years and Pence (or better yet Cruz) for another 8
Mueller is going to give Trump a bad report. How bad is not yet known , as Mueller is clearly still investigating collusion (he handed out more subpoenas today). My hope is that in the end Trump is persuaded by the facts to resign. It seems like a long shot, but if he loses the House in the fall, effectively ending his legislative hopes for his first term, and the Mueller news is so bad for Trump it makes him un-reelectable, maybe he will say "fuck it" and pack up his lies and diseased narcissism and go home early.
maybe he will say "fuck it" and pack up his lies and diseased narcissism and go home early.
... or maybe he’ll have a new home in club fed. Fingers crossed.
We need to dispense with the notion that the law needs to ignore the cocaine on the table when it knocks on the door for a noise complaint. Treat the pig just like any one of us would be treated.
machine gunz for worms,
what if the birds can get hold of worm ridding drugs from the vet ?
Dewormed by default, of deformed defamation of assassinated characters, committing character assassination, upon a whole damn Nation omitting intelligence and critical thinking skills has left our country in critical condition, as when too many of US have become conditioned, to accept unacceptable conditions,
we are left, in the condition we're in
n
eye
c
it
as
Critical
Oh, that's right, that is the only way you can get rid of him. he would need to resign.
Does he look like he's going to resign?
If, if, if. IF I would have been Pres. Trump in the first six months, I would have said, "F...you" .....I don't need this. I would have done that in a NY second. My bad because there are millions of people who voted for him and he is obligated to stay the race. His not being accepted as POTUS is on the backs of people like you who wouldn't give him a chance. Shame on you! From the very beginning you had a vendetta out for him and I don't know why. Did you want Hillary that much? Did his hair turn you off? Sorry, he was born with it. Did his wealth turn you off? Sorry, Hillary has wealth, also. Did his race turn you off? Sorry, he was born that way.
You and your liberal friends did not give this man one friggin moment of peace from the time he was elected. And, don't bring up to me about Obama facing Congressional discord. He had everything going for him. Say anything about Obama's policies and it is "he is black and you are a racist". He had the media on his side....don't forget that.
So for President Trump because he won't say it...take this job and shove it!
No, I just don't like crooks, conmen and, traitors. Trump is all three.
BS.......total BS. You like the others didn't even consider that when your vendetta began.
Yours is the BS. I have been against Trump since that day almost 3 years ago when he came down that escalator. He has no more business being president of the United States than you or I do.
I don't have a "vendetta" in this, I just don't like crooks, conmen or, traitors. I knew Trump was two of the three before the election, in fact I knew he was back in the 1980's, I just didn't know he was a traitor until after the election.
No, it is not. You started this day after day when he was elected. You had no idea at the time he came down an escalator.
A traitor.....that is funny. First I heard of that.
LOL, really?
Now, take a deep breath and, count to ten.
What would you call it when someone works to undermine our democracy.
Well, that's just your opinion. I can live with that.
Happy Trails.
No, it seems the Senate agrees.
Two words for you,
Crossfire Hurricane. Remember them.
Sorry to say, you have no idea what you are talking about.
And I hate leftists who try to transform America. I guess we are even!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha, if you are trying to insult me, try again.
I can't believe you don't know who I was referring to. Your'e kidding right?
You remember them. FBI & DOJ officials are going to be prosecuted for that
Clinton hurt Clinton
Say's you! We live in a free country and Donald Trump is now President. Don't like it? Take it down the road and dump it!
Why that would be the progressive Deep State! Don't worry we got em now!
I admire your positive optimism, but you will end up being badly disappointed.
You think so?
I got a little bulletin for you too - The IG will be releasing his report on the FBI/DOJ today or tomorrow! You better brace yourself
Let's go to REALITY!
This is a likely felony, folks!
Mr. Trump’s financial disclosure , released by the Office of Government Ethics, did not specify the purpose of the payment. However, Mr. Cohen has paid $130,000 to a pornographic film actress, Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen has said he made the payment shortly before the 2016 election as hush money for Ms. Clifford, who goes by the stage name Stormy Daniels.
Mr. Trump repaid Mr. Cohen $100,001 to $250,000 in 2017, according to a footnote in the filing.
David J. Apol, the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics, sent Mr. Rosenstein a copy of Mr. Trump’s current and previous financial form, noting in his letter that “you may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing regarding the president’s prior report that was signed on June 14, 2017.”
But in APRIL, 2018 …
"NEWS" from Fox News … REALLY?
And there's more BAD news regarding Michael Cohen!!!
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ...
Stop talking about it and do something, If you all have the goods, then, give him the boot, otherwise, stop.
It will be taken care of, not by us but, by Mueller and, his team, they will make a recommendation to Congress that Trump be impeached and, then Congress will take it from there......hopefully. After the impeachment process is done then Mueller or, whoever is in charge at the time can proceed with a prosecution.
Good luck! Are you writing a suspense novel?
Maggie,
A competent investigator does not indict until he is confident that all relevant facts are in total and verified; it took more than three years to get Nixon. And if the current Republican-controlled Congress was fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities, Trump would already have been impeached and some of his cabinet indicted for acts of corruption.
It doesn't matter Mac...he can't be prosecuted for anything while president, only impeached, which doesn't seem likely. You seem to be highly confused about the process. No evidence of any crime that would be impeachable has come to light. Anti-Trumpers need to grow up and accept reality
Yes he can. It would need to be challenged in court. The DOJ has a GUIDELINE, not a law. So it IS possible trump CAN be charged with a crime. But like you said, he doesn't have to be charged with a crime to be thrown out of office on his fat orange ass, (and THEN be charged with a crime).
I agree, but I think it's ultimately a smart policy. I think we want Congress - not some department of unelected people - being the check on presidential power (or the abuse thereof).
Not often we agree but I do agree with you. It would be a bad policy to charge a sitting president. All I am saying is that it IS possible, (but it would be a mistake to do so).
One of the perplexing questions of constitutional law is what to do about a sitting president who is suspected of having committed a crime. This much is clear: A sitting president should not be required to submit to a criminal trial, an undertaking that would be incompatible with the duties of the nation’s chief executive.
That should not, however, preclude a grand jury from indicting a president when the facts and the law warrant, even if the trial itself has to be postponed until he or she is no longer in office.
An indictment in this context serves a critically important purpose: Without it, the usual five-year statute of limitations for most federal crimes would elapse, forever precluding a president from being held accountable for potentially serious crimes. Thus, a president should be indictable unless he agrees to waive any future defense that the statute of limitations expired during the president’s term.
There is nothing in the constitutional text or judicial precedent that provides for a categorical bar to the indictment of a sitting president.
The closest the Supreme Court has come to addressing the question was in Clinton v. Jones in 1997, in which the issue was whether a president could delay until the end of his term a civil suit by a private individual. In Clinton v. Jones for the United States, it was urged that to hold that a civil trial would unduly impair a president’s ability to carry out his duties.
The court unanimously rejected that position!
____________________________________________________
But let me ask you a hypothetical question; what if a sitting POTUS committed a murder in the presence of witnesses, and, one which was captured on video?
Is there any reasonable individual who would then argue that a sitting POTUS could not be prosecuted?
He would be impeached, removed from office and then prosecuted.
The DOJ has been very clear on this since first addressing the topic both before and after the Clinton case you cite.
You're right. But it is not impossible to charge a sitting president. I agree that it would be a bad idea.
The inevitable conclusion and unequivocal evidence of guilt, would indeed precipitate impeachment, BUT, that would be a logistical formality, Sean.
In the hypothetical I posited, and/or any other inevitable realization of POTUS' guilt, for Congress to fail to impeach as an insidious partisan ploy … would not fly … even with the current Republican-controlled Congress.
And, I speculate, should it appear virtually inevitable that the House and Senate will become Democrat-controlled after November's midterms, Republicans will be tripping over one another to urge Trump to resign a la Nixon lest they impeach him!
Supposedly, in America, no one is above the law. Anybody can be indicted if the charges can be proven in a court of law.
Giuliani needs more fish oil in his diet.
Where's Badfish??
Not a sitting president. He would have to be impeached first, then prosecuted for the "high crime or misdemeanor".
Not happening.
I am curious... Why do you say that? A lot of people said Clinton would never be impeached too, and Nixon would have been had he not resigned. So what makes you SO SURE, that trump would never be impeached? Do you have some secret knowledge that you and only you are privy? Are you on Mueller's team?
By the way … I believe that Giuliani just walked back the headline claim …
"Mueller Told Trump's Legal Team He Will Not Indict The President, Giuliani Tells Fox News."
Stay tuned.
99% of what Rudy says gets walked back.
The fish oil must be working for Giuliani.
That was just Giuliani talking out of his ass.
back at 5PM EST